Ok so here in the west we have rampant consumerism and in other continents and countries poverty kills more people than we could ever imagine. What do you think god is more bothered about , poverty and people dieing of starvation all over the world, which in this day and age simply should not happen, and the worldwide arms trade. Or about someone who sleeps with someone of the same sex?.
Politics What do you think god is more pissed off about
If you read the bible it would appear that god is never happy unless you are devoting all of your time to worshiping him. That being said, I think he will smite everyone...save of course the 144,000 true christians that are supposed to go to heaven once the apocalypse has taken place.
My guess is what that few people going to heaven, they will not be starving, or homeless or gay....
My guess is what that few people going to heaven, they will not be starving, or homeless or gay....
sycofancy said:
Thats my point , i mean it's like all these christians bleet on about how being gay is wrong and you have to act in a certain way to please god or else your gonna go down in a pit of fire blah blah blah. But they never say anything about how wrong the world trade in arms is wrong and that because of it half the world is starving to death. The point that i am trying to make is , there are a lot lot worse evils in this world than simply being gay , not that i think that being Gay is evil , but others seem to think so. Where is this so called compassion for humanity that christians are supposed to exhibit , this is the reason why i turned my back on the christian/catholic church because it is so full of hypocriscey it's unbelievable.
I agree. Choosing to murder someone choosing to rape someone choosing to steal from someone, choosing to use sweatshop labor, and choosing to be an evil dictator if far worse then being born gay. The vary nature of sin and redemption through god is that we all sin of our on volition and that if we wished to be better people, then we would choose to commit fewer sins. Homosexuals don't have that choice.
There is also that rather nasty business about how is homosexuals have no choice but to be gay, and if god happens to hate homosexuals, then god has made a flawed creation and cannot easily be explained away by free will.
There is also that rather nasty business about how is homosexuals have no choice but to be gay, and if god happens to hate homosexuals, then god has made a flawed creation and cannot easily be explained away by free will.
the_alliance
Cadet
just to say for the, oh i think the trillionth time, being gay is not a sin!!!!!!
and in response to this topic, God never gets mad. it's just that sometimes we choose to do the wrong things and in doing so, we choose to turn away from God and it would be better for those people to go to Hell. the common misconception is that God is the almighty smiter who sends evil people to Hell. but actually, Hell is quite nice. people who think God is stupid and dont believe in God, actually LIKE Hell. Hell is not full of flames and torture, it's just paradise without God, which can never be true paradise, much like this world. no matter what you do for worldly goods, you will never find true happiness. i've had a small taste of this myself. only through God can one find true happiness. another misconception is taking the Bible literally. lots of stuff in there is not accurate. BUT only through thorough studies of the Bible can one understand it.
and in response to this topic, God never gets mad. it's just that sometimes we choose to do the wrong things and in doing so, we choose to turn away from God and it would be better for those people to go to Hell. the common misconception is that God is the almighty smiter who sends evil people to Hell. but actually, Hell is quite nice. people who think God is stupid and dont believe in God, actually LIKE Hell. Hell is not full of flames and torture, it's just paradise without God, which can never be true paradise, much like this world. no matter what you do for worldly goods, you will never find true happiness. i've had a small taste of this myself. only through God can one find true happiness. another misconception is taking the Bible literally. lots of stuff in there is not accurate. BUT only through thorough studies of the Bible can one understand it.
A
AliasALIAS
Guest
All? Never? Psh.Sex-Dwarf said:
I agree with much of what the_alliance said. It's from the assumption that God exists, but so is the question of this topic.
Scarlet Crystal
Bibbity Rabbity
he is a god of love... our sheapardthe_alliance said:
How do you purpose to take the bible? As the fiction that it is, or the fact that Christians claim it is. If it poetic and metaphorical it cannot be fact and or history as poetry and the like has no place in fact and history.
Sure you can take the parts you like, twist them however you like them, take them out of context, say they are allegorical, claim that parts that are weird or cruel are antiquated, but the bible and bible study does nothing to foster faith. If you have faith and believe in God good for you, live you life according the supposed love you find in the bible. If you have faith, believe in God and wish to follow all of his laws...my guess is that you would have earned a one way ticket to hell by the time you've reached your first birthday.
Even Jesus, Mr. Love himself, insists on maiming those who offend him and his disciples. (Mark 9:43-48) Jesus even attacks Pharisees for failing to kill disobedient children as is stated by his fathers (Gods) law. (Matt 15:4-7)
It is just love all around in the bible!
If taken literally we would have fathers tossing their daughters to angry crowds for rape and ravage. We would have rampant incest. We would have slavery of all races. We would be stoning people to death for using obscenities, calling psychic hotlines, being "unclean" or any number of benign acts. And that just the first 3 chapters. I feel the love already!
Also a deity who floods the earth to get rid of all living things does not sound like a happy go lucky, never raises his voice kind of guy. What with his book being filled with vengeance, smiting, and step by step instructions on how HE likes his animal sacrifices, I would say that he needs anger management.
I also believe, that if one enjoys the bibles murderous and smiteful explanations, God considers homosexuality an "abomination" and believes homosexuals must be "put to death." (Lev 18:22/13)
Language like that sounds rather sinful to me.
Part of the reason I have stayed and atheist is studying the bible. I would have to say I have studied rather thoroughly, and with the perspective of having an open mind rather then changing it's meaning to suit my will.
As for your vision of hell…even Jesus himself speaks of pits of fire and gnashing of teeth (Matt 13:41-42) So what is this godless paradise you speak of?
Sure you can take the parts you like, twist them however you like them, take them out of context, say they are allegorical, claim that parts that are weird or cruel are antiquated, but the bible and bible study does nothing to foster faith. If you have faith and believe in God good for you, live you life according the supposed love you find in the bible. If you have faith, believe in God and wish to follow all of his laws...my guess is that you would have earned a one way ticket to hell by the time you've reached your first birthday.
Even Jesus, Mr. Love himself, insists on maiming those who offend him and his disciples. (Mark 9:43-48) Jesus even attacks Pharisees for failing to kill disobedient children as is stated by his fathers (Gods) law. (Matt 15:4-7)
It is just love all around in the bible!
If taken literally we would have fathers tossing their daughters to angry crowds for rape and ravage. We would have rampant incest. We would have slavery of all races. We would be stoning people to death for using obscenities, calling psychic hotlines, being "unclean" or any number of benign acts. And that just the first 3 chapters. I feel the love already!
Also a deity who floods the earth to get rid of all living things does not sound like a happy go lucky, never raises his voice kind of guy. What with his book being filled with vengeance, smiting, and step by step instructions on how HE likes his animal sacrifices, I would say that he needs anger management.
I also believe, that if one enjoys the bibles murderous and smiteful explanations, God considers homosexuality an "abomination" and believes homosexuals must be "put to death." (Lev 18:22/13)
Language like that sounds rather sinful to me.
Part of the reason I have stayed and atheist is studying the bible. I would have to say I have studied rather thoroughly, and with the perspective of having an open mind rather then changing it's meaning to suit my will.
As for your vision of hell…even Jesus himself speaks of pits of fire and gnashing of teeth (Matt 13:41-42) So what is this godless paradise you speak of?
the_alliance
Cadet
that's the problem with some people. it's either black or white, the bible is either all wrong or all literal. if that's the way someone is thinking, i wont even bother discussing the bible anymore, because it is obvious that this person is seriously mentally immature (not saying "stupid", but just ignorant) and cannot accept the fact that in the real, grown-up world, lots of times things are grey. that's what the bible is. some is true historical fact and some is myth/stories.
as for studying the bible, one cannot say that the bible is wrong if they have studied it throughly and understand it. as for the hell idea, jesus was just trying to say that hell is a bad place because god is not there. since god is the epitome of good, the absence of good is bad. that's what he was trying to illustrate with the fire and gnashing of teeth. it is suffering, much like everyday life is suffering. only those like mother teresa who truly live WITHIN God can truly be happy.
as for studying the bible, one cannot say that the bible is wrong if they have studied it throughly and understand it. as for the hell idea, jesus was just trying to say that hell is a bad place because god is not there. since god is the epitome of good, the absence of good is bad. that's what he was trying to illustrate with the fire and gnashing of teeth. it is suffering, much like everyday life is suffering. only those like mother teresa who truly live WITHIN God can truly be happy.
The real grown up world you say?
Now, I peg you at about 17 judging from your opinions. On the other hand I, at 23, have certainly lived in the "grown up world" for a lot longer then you have. Considering you are not technically grown up one might think that you have not lived in the grown up world at all. I guess you could consider it a "gray area" though. On the one hand you are at an age where you think you know it all, on the other hand you actually have no idea what you are talking about. It is all very fuzzy in that respect.
As for my understanding of the bible, I think you had better think before you type next time as I have a degree in classical history, with a strong focus on divinity, which I got from Harvard. I hate to be cocky, but there is no way in Jesus' fireless hell that you have a better understanding of the bible then I do. Once again we enter that "gray area" where you, at about 17, think that you know it all about life and the world.
I will say one thing though and it that I enjoy how you illustrated my point though by telling all us unsaved heathens what Jesus meant by his description of hell. You would obviously know, you are one of his chosen people. I guess all of those hundred's of descriptions of hell in the bible are allegory, or metaphor, or just plain too unhappy to be true. After all God smites because he loves, and Jesus insists on killing disobedient children because he is trying to live by his fathers rules.
I wouldn't go so far as to say your attitude of superior biblical understand is ignorant or stupid (after all you know what Jesus meant about the fiery pits of hell and the gnashing of teeth) I will say however that it is unequivocally naive.
Now, I peg you at about 17 judging from your opinions. On the other hand I, at 23, have certainly lived in the "grown up world" for a lot longer then you have. Considering you are not technically grown up one might think that you have not lived in the grown up world at all. I guess you could consider it a "gray area" though. On the one hand you are at an age where you think you know it all, on the other hand you actually have no idea what you are talking about. It is all very fuzzy in that respect.
As for my understanding of the bible, I think you had better think before you type next time as I have a degree in classical history, with a strong focus on divinity, which I got from Harvard. I hate to be cocky, but there is no way in Jesus' fireless hell that you have a better understanding of the bible then I do. Once again we enter that "gray area" where you, at about 17, think that you know it all about life and the world.
I will say one thing though and it that I enjoy how you illustrated my point though by telling all us unsaved heathens what Jesus meant by his description of hell. You would obviously know, you are one of his chosen people. I guess all of those hundred's of descriptions of hell in the bible are allegory, or metaphor, or just plain too unhappy to be true. After all God smites because he loves, and Jesus insists on killing disobedient children because he is trying to live by his fathers rules.
I wouldn't go so far as to say your attitude of superior biblical understand is ignorant or stupid (after all you know what Jesus meant about the fiery pits of hell and the gnashing of teeth) I will say however that it is unequivocally naive.
Princess Jeanie
Cadet
I'm not sure if it's really all that mature to be quoting six years as being proof of the fact you feel you are more qualified to make any judgements. Yes, age does make a difference when you are talking about life experiences, but so does a bunch of other stuff. And you of all people, I'm disappointed that you would reduce you're judgement of anyone to a stereotypical seventeen year old image. I know from your past post that you, like many of us, value the fact that you don't fall into any stereotype. I, for instance, am not you're typical college student-I think my life experiences and choices that I've made have made me unique an much more mature than many people my age. SO-point being, just because The_Alliance may be seventeen, you can not assume that you being alive six years longer makes you any more qualified, you don't know what her seventeen or whatever years have done to make her who she is.
But, on topic, shall we....
Having a degree from Harvard means *nothing* by way of make you the all time expert (okay, before I get hit by that comment, it is an acomplishment, I'm not deminishing that). Nor am I saying I am the expert either, but an entire K-12 education at a Catholic school, does leave me with a understanding of the bible-in the Catholic tradition. And I wouldn't deminish The_Alliance's studies either...like I said, a Harvard degree, although impressive, doesn't make you superior. You may have learned the bible in a "book smart" type of way, but living it and trying to incorperate it into your belief system is a *totally* different task...the two cannot be compared.
Agreed. Take for example, the story of the Arc...the Church isn't teaching that Noah actually put every animal in pairs on the arc. It's just a story meant to teach a lesson.
If you are going to cite a passage, cite the whole thing. Lev 18:22-"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination." Alright...so as been stated before...*BEING* gay is not a sin, it's not an abomination. Acting on such feelings is a sin...which is a Catholic teaching. So the Church saying that those who are born (a yet to be totally proven fact-psychology says that we are 60% our genes and 40% our up bringing) are automatically sinful, it's the act...just like if a heterosexual couple were to have sex out of marriage-same diff according to the Church. As long as one is not married they are called to a life of chasity-the hitch being that homosexuals can not get married in the Church, something that isn't ever going to change. As for where it says that they should be "put to death", I'm not finding that, but if it's there, I would like to see what the rest of the passage said.
That as it might be (and I'm not convinced), they are human-they have a choice as to how they act.
A sin, is a sin, is a sin. Yet, The Church (meaning again Catholic) does make the distinction between a venial sin (a slighter sin which hurts our relationship with God) and a mortal sin (a sin which freewill has allowed us to completely turn our back on our relationship with God). All of those, which you mentioned are mortal sins (all the same), with the exception of being born gay. Acting on one's gay tendencies would be a mortal sin-falling in the same category.
Alright, enough for now...
I vote, I pay taxes, I own a house, and I have gone to 6 years of college. Regardless being over 18 makes me an adult, being under 18 makes you a child, not to mention that you can’t vote, you pay little if any taxes, you usually don’t own a house, and you certainly have not received a college education. One day when you become and adult, and you (when I say “you” it is in the collective rather that individual sense) read the statements of teenagers you will think “wow I thought I knew it all back then.” Being alive 6 years longer has nothing to with it, being an actual adult does. There is no way that a 17 year old have the life experience of a 23 year, especially this 23 year old.
Having a degree in a specific area of study makes me more knowledgeable then anyone, any 17 year kid anyway, who does not have a degree in that area of study. Again you are a kid, when you grow up and find an area of expertise then maybe we can talk. Again a degree in any field make anyone superior, in that field. I am not saying I am superior at poker, or pie baking, or sign language, just classical history which cannot be studied with out extensive studying of the bible. I also was taught by someone who’s only agenda was to teach me about the bible, unlike say a preacher who wants to save people from damnation. Simple put, I read the bible and drew my own conclusions, I did not have a church advocate telling me how I was supposed to fell about everything I had read. The bible is always incorporated into everyone belief system in this country, Christian or atheist. Religion is shoved down our throats all the time, be it through national days of prayer, of God Blessing America, religion is everywhere. The unfortunate part is that most people don’t take the time to read the bible with any open mind, they are predisposed to either believe it or disbelieve it, and that really is sad.
As for your comment about citing passages from the bible would you like me to cut and paste the whole bible as to make my point? Because really I think that would exceed the character limit for one post. The reason I put the books and chapters in parentheses after each statement was to save myself sometime from typing out the whole thing. Since I actually used the word abomination AND put it in quotation marks, I think it is safe to say I knew that “abomination” and not sin was the word used. What you did not quote from my previous post was the I said the word “abomination” along with the phrase “put to death” sounded like sinful language. I guess you are just taking my postings like you take the bible, only quoting the parts the suit your needs.
About you statement about homosexuals not having a choice. Unless you are a homosexual, like I happen to be, you being “convinced of anything regarding why someone is or is not a homosexual should be kept to yourself. You don’t see homosexual walking around questioning someone’s heterosexuality claiming they made the choice to be straight. It just doesn’t happen. I can safely say that as a homosexual I didn’t choose to be this way. Why would one choose to put themselves in a position where they have to explain themselves to those who are too ignorant to accept that homosexuals exist because of birth and not choice?
Having a degree in a specific area of study makes me more knowledgeable then anyone, any 17 year kid anyway, who does not have a degree in that area of study. Again you are a kid, when you grow up and find an area of expertise then maybe we can talk. Again a degree in any field make anyone superior, in that field. I am not saying I am superior at poker, or pie baking, or sign language, just classical history which cannot be studied with out extensive studying of the bible. I also was taught by someone who’s only agenda was to teach me about the bible, unlike say a preacher who wants to save people from damnation. Simple put, I read the bible and drew my own conclusions, I did not have a church advocate telling me how I was supposed to fell about everything I had read. The bible is always incorporated into everyone belief system in this country, Christian or atheist. Religion is shoved down our throats all the time, be it through national days of prayer, of God Blessing America, religion is everywhere. The unfortunate part is that most people don’t take the time to read the bible with any open mind, they are predisposed to either believe it or disbelieve it, and that really is sad.
As for your comment about citing passages from the bible would you like me to cut and paste the whole bible as to make my point? Because really I think that would exceed the character limit for one post. The reason I put the books and chapters in parentheses after each statement was to save myself sometime from typing out the whole thing. Since I actually used the word abomination AND put it in quotation marks, I think it is safe to say I knew that “abomination” and not sin was the word used. What you did not quote from my previous post was the I said the word “abomination” along with the phrase “put to death” sounded like sinful language. I guess you are just taking my postings like you take the bible, only quoting the parts the suit your needs.
About you statement about homosexuals not having a choice. Unless you are a homosexual, like I happen to be, you being “convinced of anything regarding why someone is or is not a homosexual should be kept to yourself. You don’t see homosexual walking around questioning someone’s heterosexuality claiming they made the choice to be straight. It just doesn’t happen. I can safely say that as a homosexual I didn’t choose to be this way. Why would one choose to put themselves in a position where they have to explain themselves to those who are too ignorant to accept that homosexuals exist because of birth and not choice?
spy_girl21
Cadet
I don't know, how to go about this topic. Even though in the bible it does say that you aren't supposed to like someone of the gender, I don't know though so, I'm going to be neutral on the topic.
first of all, i agree with a lot of your posts, sycofancy, in other forums as well. but i really hate how you're disregarding someone's views because they are 17. i'm 16, and not all teenagers think they know everything, but we are in the process of learning, as is a 23 year old. we, as teenagers, can still have valid opinions, and should be able to express them with out someone older patronizing and condescending to us.
and you asked, how should one take the bible, as the "fiction that it is, or the fact christians take it to be. If it poetic and metaphorical it cannot be fact and or history as poetry and the like has no place in fact and history." i'm a bit confused by your wording, here, but if i'm deciphering it correctly, you're saying poetry has no place in history. i'm not sure i agree with that. i think the alliance might have a point when he says that that is trying to look at the bible in black and white terms.
however, i will say this, the more and more i read of the bible, especially the old testament, the more and more it seems unchristian.
and you asked, how should one take the bible, as the "fiction that it is, or the fact christians take it to be. If it poetic and metaphorical it cannot be fact and or history as poetry and the like has no place in fact and history." i'm a bit confused by your wording, here, but if i'm deciphering it correctly, you're saying poetry has no place in history. i'm not sure i agree with that. i think the alliance might have a point when he says that that is trying to look at the bible in black and white terms.
however, i will say this, the more and more i read of the bible, especially the old testament, the more and more it seems unchristian.
Admitting that you are in the process of learning and that you do not know everything is a very mature viewpoint. Although I am of the opinion that because of the added responsibilities of being an adult, I do in fact have a better grasp on life then someone who has never dealt with those thing, I do not in any way claim to know it all. 10, or ever 5, years from now I will look back on some of my opinions and think "wow that was really naive of me." All because I will have matured, I will have seen more of life, and dealt with more responsibilities then I had 10 years prior.
The issue I took with The Alliance’s comments is that she/he stated that I would learn not to deal with thing as black and white when I enter the grown up world when the fact is she/he is 16 and I am 23. No matter how you look at it 16 year olds are not in the real grown up world, and 23 year olds are. There are just some things that you can never understand about life until you have had to make car payments, house payments, student loan payments, and still manage to feed yourself. It's tough, enjoy your teenaged years while you can, because the grown up world is in many ways not as fun.
I am not patronizing you, I am patronizing youthful naivety, because it is a common bond that we all share no matter what are opinions are.
As far as history is concerned I think the blander and factual historical text is the better. Poetry and allegory takes away from the facts historical texts is supposed to present. The excitement and enjoyment one gets from reading something historical should be the notion that the text they are reading changed the world and shaped the future, it need not be rhyming or have duel meaning. If I wanted to get a feel for the social climate in Greece, while all the while being entertained, I would read Homer. If I wanted to read about the social climate, causes, and aftermath about the Peloponnesian War, I would read Thucydides. Each work is not without it's merits, but one cannot argue the facts of Thucydides, because he leaves nothing to be reflected upon, he uses no bombastic language, and he is a recognized historian of his era. The bible on the other hand has no known contributions from historians of the time, leaves almost everything to be reflected upon, and is chockfull of bombastic language. Even from my own technical opinions, with out even the slightest consideration from it's content; I would deem it to be historical fiction not historic chronicle. Again, that is my own opinion, I am not trying to impose it one anyone.
The issue I took with The Alliance’s comments is that she/he stated that I would learn not to deal with thing as black and white when I enter the grown up world when the fact is she/he is 16 and I am 23. No matter how you look at it 16 year olds are not in the real grown up world, and 23 year olds are. There are just some things that you can never understand about life until you have had to make car payments, house payments, student loan payments, and still manage to feed yourself.
It's tough, enjoy your teenaged years while you can, because the grown up world is in many ways not as fun. I am not patronizing you, I am patronizing youthful naivety, because it is a common bond that we all share no matter what are opinions are.
As far as history is concerned I think the blander and factual historical text is the better. Poetry and allegory takes away from the facts historical texts is supposed to present. The excitement and enjoyment one gets from reading something historical should be the notion that the text they are reading changed the world and shaped the future, it need not be rhyming or have duel meaning. If I wanted to get a feel for the social climate in Greece, while all the while being entertained, I would read Homer. If I wanted to read about the social climate, causes, and aftermath about the Peloponnesian War, I would read Thucydides. Each work is not without it's merits, but one cannot argue the facts of Thucydides, because he leaves nothing to be reflected upon, he uses no bombastic language, and he is a recognized historian of his era. The bible on the other hand has no known contributions from historians of the time, leaves almost everything to be reflected upon, and is chockfull of bombastic language. Even from my own technical opinions, with out even the slightest consideration from it's content; I would deem it to be historical fiction not historic chronicle. Again, that is my own opinion, I am not trying to impose it one anyone.
the_alliance
Cadet
when quoting the Bible, make sure that the verses are not part of a larger story. the leviticus passage you so intelligently chose is part of Jewish law. although christianity branches from jewish law, many of those laws do not apply anymore to christians. most non-denominational Christians do not have a set of rules aside from the bible but catholics have 2000 years of tradition that has been accumulated, modifyied, and such so you might was to start there.
i never said that non christians are unsaved heathens and i never said that i know that im saved, although i know that i will eventually get into heaven after my soul is purified. many people go through that process, but only those who consciously object to God (which can be replaced with love) will not be saved, but even then, who am i to say so? ultimately, God chooses and i feel that if one does not choose to live like how he teaches (with love) then God will not choose to save them (these are probably along the lines of unrepenting murderers, but even murderers who are sorry for their actions are saved).
not all of the bible is fiction (i say again). for instance, to denounce that Jesus walked on this earth would be stupid, because Roman records have shown that a Nazarene named Iesus walked on the earth and was killed. that's historical fact. but something like noah's ark (like princess jeannie said) is merely a story to explain something, much like the creation myth.
being an adult, you should know that much of life isn't black or white. i know this because i hear it from my parents and teachers all the time. therefore, it would be naive, not for me, for one to say that the bible is either completely historically true (which is false) or completely fiction (which is false also).
i never said that non christians are unsaved heathens and i never said that i know that im saved, although i know that i will eventually get into heaven after my soul is purified. many people go through that process, but only those who consciously object to God (which can be replaced with love) will not be saved, but even then, who am i to say so? ultimately, God chooses and i feel that if one does not choose to live like how he teaches (with love) then God will not choose to save them (these are probably along the lines of unrepenting murderers, but even murderers who are sorry for their actions are saved).
not all of the bible is fiction (i say again). for instance, to denounce that Jesus walked on this earth would be stupid, because Roman records have shown that a Nazarene named Iesus walked on the earth and was killed. that's historical fact. but something like noah's ark (like princess jeannie said) is merely a story to explain something, much like the creation myth.
being an adult, you should know that much of life isn't black or white. i know this because i hear it from my parents and teachers all the time. therefore, it would be naive, not for me, for one to say that the bible is either completely historically true (which is false) or completely fiction (which is false also).
the_alliance
Cadet
well its true. laws such as circumcision and purification rituals don't apply anymore. one thing that im glad doesnt apply anymore are the sacrificial laws.xdancer said: